Thank you for the outstanding coverage of the problems facing the world’s oceans ("Ocean Rescue," cover story, July/August 2005). As the articles point out, two blue-ribbon commissions have separately come to the same conclusion: our oceans are in trouble and the time for action is now. However, your discussion of one solution—individual fishing quotas—left out an issue in which citizens can play a crucial role.

The problems associated with individual fishing quotas—privatizing a publicly owned resource, dubious environmental benefits, and detrimental impacts on coastal communities—cannot be remedied solely through community fishing quotas. We are supportive of community fishing quotas, but along with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, recognize the need for national standards to guide the development of any fishing quota programs. Such standards should prevent privatization, ensure that marine environments are protected and work to keep fishing communities strong. Readers can help get these standards put into law by calling on their Congressional representatives to endorse H.R. 3278, the Fishing Quota Standards Act of 2005. To learn more, please visit www.conservefish.org.

Thank you for your important articles about the threats facing our seas. Sadly, we cannot depend on legislation or the fishing industry to solve these problems. We each need to take personal responsibility for the cruelty and devastation that are occurring in our oceans. Indiscriminate fishing practices such as long lining (ships unreel as much as 75 miles of line bristling with hundreds of thousands of baited hooks) and purse seining are stripping the oceans clean of sea life. Scientists recently found that nearly 1,000 marine mammals—including dolphins, whales and porpoises—die each day after being caught in fishing nets.

And don’t forget about the suffering endured by the fish themselves. One People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) staffer went out on a commercial gill netter, and she watched as fish after fish was violently extracted from the net. Hundreds of fish were squeezed and torn out of the tangle. Then they were roughly tossed into a metal bin; many were vomiting up their guts, their eyes bulging from the pressure changes. Their gill arches were slit and they were thrown into the next bin, where they twitched and gasped, slowly bleeding to death.We can all make a difference today—whether Capitol Hill does or not—simply by not eating fish. To learn other ways you can help, please visit FishingHurts.com.

Karin Robertson, Manager Fish Empathy Project, PETA Norfolk, VA

In all the recent discussion about commercial fishing, we note the absence of any reference to the importance of vessel design itself in terms of sustainability. In your articles, Rod Fujita comes close and yet stops short.

At Phil Bolger and Friends, we have proposed since 2002 an ecologically and economically advanced vessel. Based on a low-horsepower, long, lean, unsinkable, offshore-capable geometry, this could be built and maintained locally—using mostly renewable resources—and would be highly fuel-efficient. By putting fishermen in smaller, cheaper boats, they will be able to support themselves catching fewer fish. The pressure to beat quotas will be reduced, since fishermen won’t have as much debt as they did with larger boats.

Despite the inherent logic of this rather uncomplicated approach to sustainability, we know of no institutions, organizations or advocacy groups pursuing research along those lines. And the Magnusson-Stevenson Act actually forces less sustainable fishing boat designs in its codified incomprehension of basic naval engineering. Put polemically, it classifies a 60-foot long, 600-horsepower trawler the same way as a 60-foot, eight-oared rowing shell!

Since 2002, we’ve offered our local fleet pro bono design proposals. And even with state and federal R&D funding within reach, there’s been next to no interest. Everyone else seems to be preoccupied cursing "eco-terrorists" and chanting for "more fish." In this context, the Bush administration’s ocean policies seem among the smaller obstacles.

Susanne AltenburgerPhil Bolger and FriendsGloucester, MA

DOn’t FORGET SOY ALLERGIES

E‘s article on peanut and tree nut allergies ("Going Nuts," Eating Right, July/August 2005) failed to warn parents that children with nut allergies are at risk of severe—even fatal—reactions to soy. A 1999 article in the journal Allergy reported the deaths of four Swedish children as a result of consuming minuscule amounts of soy "hidden" in hamburgers and other foods. None had shown signs of being allergic to soy in the past.

The Swedish National Food Administration warns that those at highest risk of soy allergy suffer from asthma as well as peanut allergy. Peanuts and soy are members of the same botanical family (the grain-legume type). Scientists have known for years that people allergic to one are often allergic to another and reactions can be cumulative, resulting in symptoms far more severe than either alone.

I am both saddened and frustrated to see the comments of fellow E Magazine readers against hybrid cars over recent issues (Advice and Dissent, March/April 2005 and July/August 2005).

Hybrid cars offer a no-brainer, readily available technology that can help tackle global warming. Yes, hybrids are not nearly the solution we need, but as the name implies it is a step between the past (oil based) and new (fuel cell) ways of powering the vehicles that our societies seem powerless to live without. Politicians are failing in their responsibility to tackle climate change. We have recently gone through elections in the U.K. where the environment didn’t even register as a campaign issue. It is increasingly up to individuals to take the lead. But to argue and criticize such technology is to procrastinate and play into the hands of inaction. Hybrids are a step forward and should at least receive that recognition.

Kevin J. FrostLondon, United KingdomEditor’s Note: Potential hybrid buyers should take a look at the "consumer guide" to them in this issue.

NPG RESPONDS

I was very surprised to see three letters to the editor in the July/August issue of E Magazine (Advice and Dissent) criticizing Negative Population Growth’s advertisement. Perhaps the three writers should look at the many polls that show the vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly support reductions in immigration in order to gain control of a rapidly growing population and to preserve our future quality of life. U.S. population has nearly doubled since 1950, growing to more than 296 million. Even more frightening is the fact that we will add at least 123 million more Americans to that total if present trends continue, with the vast majority of that growth caused by immigration.

Statistic

s show we now allow more immigrants to enter our country than ever before. Immigrants also have more children than native-born Americans, so the long-term impact is even greater. In order to truly preserve our nation and our environment, population levels must be stabilized and eventually reduced. The first important step is to greatly reduce immigration levels.

From Our Twitter Feed…

Support Our Work

Help get others’ heads out of the sand by making a secure tax-deductible donation to EarthTalk Inc., the 501(c)3 behind Emagazine.com, the syndicated EarthTalk Q&A column and Sea Change Radio. Help up keep preaching beyond the choir on green living, sustainability and climate change with your contribution today.